Very well but I hope you understand that I see you doing the same thing. Right? I understand that you believe that I am seeing things / making this up / fooling myself by believing that the this conversation - ostensibly about wine - is actually a conversation about the bounds of a potential relationship. I understand that you believe my position lacks evidence. Is that right?
Do you understand that I believe you are doing something similar? Denying subtext, making a molehill out one conversation and that you position could only be maintained if you removed large portions of chapter 3, removed the sharing line from chapter 1 and rewrote the dialogues after the temple of shar?
To be clear I'm not asking if you agree. BELIEVE ME I know you do not. But I am wondering if you've actually engaged with what I've said in any meaningful manner.
